DocketNumber: 23-1193
Filed Date: 4/25/2023
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/25/2023
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 23-1193 ___________ DANIEL L. SPUCK, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, JANE/JOHN DOE, LEADER/HEAD OF COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00341) District Judge: Honorable Cathy Bissoon ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) On April 25, 2023 Before: SHWARTZ, BIBAS, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 25, 2023) ____________________________________ ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM Daniel Spuck, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissing his complaint with prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Spuck filed a complaint against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Jane/John Doe, “Leader/Head” of the Commonwealth. Spuck sought compensatory and punitive damages for various claims relating to criminal and civil state court proceedings. 1 Dkt. No. 3 at 4-6. Spuck also requested that the District Court enjoin the Commonwealth from recovering debts he owes and pursuing contempt charges against him. 2 Id. at 6; Dkt. No. 4. The District Court, over Spuck’s objections, adopted the Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge, denied Spuck’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and dismissed * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 Our review is limited to the record before the District Court, which did not include spe- cific information about the state court proceedings. See In re Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.’s Application for Access to Sealed Transcripts,913 F.2d 89
, 96 (3d Cir. 1990). We do not search unspecified state court records in an attempt to clarify an appellant’s arguments. 2 Although Spuck categorized the debts as restitution, the state court order accompanying his motion for a preliminary injunction indicated that he owes no restitution. Dkt. No. 4- 1. The history of Spuck’s debt is unclear. 2 the complaint with prejudice pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1915
(e)(2). Dkt. No. 7. Spuck filed this timely appeal. We have jurisdiction under28 U.S.C. § 1291
. We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of Spuck’s complaint. Dooley v. Wetzel,957 F.3d 366
, 373 (3d Cir. 2020). We review the District Court’s denial of Spuck’s motion for a preliminary injunction for “abuse of discretion, an error of law, or a clear mistake in the consideration of proof.” Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp.,369 F.3d 700
, 708 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). On appeal, Spuck challenges only the District Court’s denial of his requests for in- junctive relief. C.A. Dkt. No. 5 at 2-3. To the extent Spuck requested that the District Court intervene in a pending criminal contempt proceeding against him, the District Court correctly determined that it must abstain from doing so. 3 See Younger v. Harris,401 U.S. 37
, 45 (1971) (explaining that federal courts have power to enjoin state officers from insti- tuting criminal actions only “where the danger of irreparable loss is both great and imme- diate”). The extraordinary circumstances that would allow such interference do not exist here, and we discern no abuse of discretion by the District Court in denying Spuck’s re- quest. Spuck also asks that we direct the Commonwealth to suspend the collection of his debts while his contempt proceeding is pending. C.A. Dkt. No. 5 at 3. However, Spuck’s 3 Spuck’s filings do not reveal the exact nature of the Commonwealth’s contempt pro- ceedings. Regardless, even if Spuck’s request for intervention was related to civil con- tempt proceedings, that, too, is squarely barred by Younger. See Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs,571 U.S. 69
, 78-79 (2013). 3 vague assertions regarding this request are void of any information demonstrating that in- junctive relief is warranted. See Kos Pharms.,369 F.3d at 708
(explaining a party’s burden in seeking a preliminary injunction). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. 4